Routes that are traveled by vehicles may become damaged over time with extended use. For example, tracks on which rail vehicles travel may become damaged and/or broken. A variety of known systems are used to examine rail tracks to identify where the damaged and/or broken portions of the track are located. For example, some systems use cameras, lasers, and the like, to optically detect breaks and damage to the tracks. The cameras and lasers may be mounted on the rail vehicles, but the accuracy of the cameras and lasers may be limited by the speed at which the rail vehicles move during inspection of the route. As a result, the cameras and lasers may not be able to be used during regular operation (e.g., travel) of the rail vehicles in revenue service.
Other systems use ultrasonic transducers that are placed at or near the tracks to ultrasonically inspect the tracks. These systems may require very slow movement of the transducers relative to the tracks in order to detect damage to the track. When a suspect location is found by an ultrasonic inspection vehicle, a follow-up manual inspection may be required for confirmation of defects using transducers that are manually positioned and moved along the track and/or are moved along the track by a relatively slower moving inspection vehicle. Inspections of the track can take a considerable amount of time, during which the inspected section of the route may be unusable by regular route traffic.
Other systems use human inspectors who move along the track to inspect for broken and/or damaged sections of track. This manual inspection is slow and prone to errors.
Other systems use wayside devices that send electric signals through the tracks. If the signals are not received by other wayside devices, then a circuit that includes the track is identified as being open and the track is considered to be broken. These systems are limited at least in that the wayside devices are immobile. As a result, the systems cannot inspect large spans of track and/or a large number of devices must be installed in order to inspect the large spans of track. These systems are also limited at least in that a single circuit could stretch for multiple miles. As a result, if the track is identified as being open and is considered broken, it is difficult and time-consuming to locate the exact location of the break within the long circuit. For example, a maintainer must patrol the length of the circuit to locate the problem.
These systems are also limited at least in that other track features, such as highway (e.g., hard wire) crossing shunts, wide band (e.g., capacitors) crossing shunts, narrow band (e.g., tuned) crossing shunts, switches, insulated joints, and turnouts (e.g., track switches) may emulate the signal response expected from a broken rail and provide a false alarm. For example, scrap metal on the track, crossing shunts, etc., may short the rails together, preventing the current from traversing the length of the circuit, indicating that the circuit is open. Additionally, insulated joints and/or turnouts may include intentional conductive breaks that create an open circuit. In response, the system may identify a potentially broken section of track, and a person or machine may be dispatched to patrol the circuit to locate the break, even if the detected break is a false alarm (e.g., not a break in the track). A need remains to reduce the probability of false alarms to make route maintenance more efficient.
Some vehicle location determination systems may be unable to determine locations of the vehicle systems in some circumstances. For example, during initialization of the location determination systems, the vehicle system may be unable to determine the location of the vehicle system. During travel of the vehicle system in certain locations such as tunnels, valleys, urban areas, etc., the location determination systems may be unable to determine the locations of the vehicle systems. An improved manner for determining locations of vehicle systems is needed.